Your description also didn't sound very logical for that matter. — Cavacava
Lacan also conceptualized the mirror stage in relation to Hegel's concept of recognition and desire. The infant has a sensuous relation with its mother. Its needs are fulfilled by her and she is in tactile relation with it. In addition to needs, and quite distinct from them, the child has desires (libido) and, as Hegel says, the prime desire is to be recognized by the other's desire. The desire of the mother and the desire of the child thus enter into a complex, confused relation.
A plurality is made up of a group of individuals, so the individual is a necessary component of the plurality. However, the existence of an individual does not require the existence of a plurality, so a plurality is not necessary for the existence of an individual. Therefore it is impossible that the plurality is prior to the individual, yet possible that the individual is prior to the plurality. Furthermore, arguments can be made which indicate that it is probable that the individual is prior to plurality, as one is prior to two.
The differentiation need not be a differentiation from other individuals.
My contention is that in the real world the only actual way for a person to realize that it is an individual person is because it is able to distinguish itself from other persons and this can only be possible due to the pre-existence of other persons. If other people did not exist then I too would not exist. — Cavacava
The puzzling thing for me is how we come to inhabit this conscious location of having experiences of a reality and how this subjective location arises. (People have framed this issue with the question "Why am I me?") — Andrew4Handel
And I don't see how we can know the true nature of reality without knowing how we consciously access and to what extent that perceptual access is accurate or illusory. — Andrew4Handel
It does not work that way. It is though interactions with others that we come to realize that we are separate individuals with similar likes, dislikes, fears and so on. If you had no such interaction you would not, could not become a person. — Cavacava
Your desires are not your desires, they are the desires of others. — Cavacava
Then how did the others become aware of who they are? Am I not an "other" to others? Does not that make me the creator of others? Others are only one type of object in the world. Why would I need other people to become what I am, and not the simple recognition that I am not a tree, dog, or a rock based on my own observations of myself and other things? How would I interpret my own reflection without others around? Maybe you mean that we need language to become who we are - with a narrative?It seems to me that we only become who we are by way of others. — Cavacava
The same way that any unique array of information is about some unique states-of-affairs. A subject emerges from the kind of, and how the, information is presented. Your information entails your location in space-time and your history - which is unique and relative to every one else's. Your unique array of information is what it is like to be you.If consciousness is just "in the brain" how do you come to be the subject of that brains experiences? — Andrew4Handel
You know I disagree. You've described two distinct things here, and conflated them as one. Realizing that we are separate is one thing, and realizing that we have likes, dislikes, etc., which are similar to others is another thing. The former, recognizing that we are separate, does not require a recognition of other persons, as I explained, the latter does. The two are clearly not the same sort of thing, and ought not be classed together, as you do.
Consider this. Do you agree that in order to believe that others have desires, likes and dislikes, which are similar to your own, you must first recognize such things within yourself? You cannot recognize a desire within another, as similar to your own, without having first recognized your own desire in order to make the comparison.
The question I have for you, is how can your own desires come from others, if you cannot even recognize a desire in another without first recognizing that desire within yourself?
The same way that any unique array of information is about some unique states-of-affairs. A subject emerges from the kind of, and how the, information is presented. Your information entails your location in space-time and your history - which is unique and relative to every one else's. Your unique array of information is what it is like to be you — Harry Hindu
It seems to me that we only become who we are by way of others.
— Cavacava
Then how did the others become aware of who they are? Am I not an "other" to others? Does not that make me the creator of others? Others are only one type of object in the world. Why would I need other people to become what I am, and not the simple recognition that I am not a tree, dog, or a rock based on my own observations of myself and other things? How would I interpret my own reflection without others around? Maybe you mean that we need language to become who we are - with a narrative?
The 'I' is derivative of the 'We'. — Cavacava
The scam, the trick we all fall for, is thinking that we are a conscious thing trapped inside our body peeping out at the world — gurugeorge
This POV is not possible without self consciousness, reflexive awareness of oneself as a separate person...you asked for the location of the concept of being a person, and I suggest that location is derived from others.I am using to describe the subjective of experience
I define information as the relationship between cause and effect. Even if you didn't know what the symbols mean (their abstract meaning, or the author's intent), the fact that there are written symbols (the effect) is indicative of the cause, (someone wrote them). In seeing written symbols, I can conclude the cause of the symbols based on my experiences - people write symbols. So the Chinese symbols carry more than just their abstract meaning, or information. They also convey concrete information.For example if you cannot read Chinese the symbols mean nothing to you and don't convey any information. I don't think reproducing is the same as information so that if a gene preserves the pattern of biochemical activity that produces body parts it is just a mechanical procedure. But our kind of knowledge is mental representation. — Andrew4Handel
In a computer, information is processed and triggers certain behaviors not based on the physical interactions of the computer, but based on the logical interactions of the program. Different programs make the computer, which has the same hardware throughout each program that is run on it, behave differently. Just as you can behave differently based on the information you have in your head (working memory) at any given moment. You "physically" haven't changed, but the information inside you has, and accounts for your behavior. You can even behave differently than others given the same information because you have a unique history of experiences that allow you to interpret the information differently. In this sense, the information isn't really presented, but is the cause of our behavior as it is used by our body in order to achieve some goal.When you say "information presented" who is the information presented to? Also I don't think we know where we are in space apart from relative to what is around us and things are relative to where we are conscious of being.
So for example we are assuming we are all humans on earth but we are not imagining being another organism light years away with different senses and cognitive abilities.
So even the general human perspective is not objective in the sense we are based in from just one location in the universe with a particular array of cognitive and perceptual apparatus molding our intuitions. — Andrew4Handel
based on the logical interactions of the program. — Harry Hindu
Others are always there, that's an empirical fact, not some sort of logical regress argument. It is only by means of interactions with those closest to you that you can become you, that your desire for recognition can be realized. And, yes we begin to become self aware around the time of language acquisition, the mirror stage of development starts at around 24 months (the terrible 2s) goes on until around age 5.
The 'I' is derivative of the 'We'. — Cavacava
Sure. Computers don't have goals of self-preservation and procreation, like we do. If they acted for themselves, and were designed and programmed to use the information that they contained, or had access to via sensory devices, for their own benefit, then we could start talking about a more concrete analogy.It seems that logic is in the human mind and they create structures in computers that behave based on the operation a human wants to achieve. The program has designed constraints to guide its capacities and to act in precise or algorithmic ways
I wouldn't make an analogy between humans and computers because the immense amount of design that goes into computers. If there is no design in making humans then we can't safely take for granted any of the aspects of human inventions that utilise this — Andrew4Handel
So it comes down to, "What is consciousness?"There may be causal reason for behaviours and belief formation et al but I don't see how that explains the subjective perspective. For example it is possible that You and I are having a near identical experience of a tree. I don't think we are differentiated simply by possibly having a different combination of input.
Nevertheless I am not very knowledgeable about the concept of information in physics but if everything carries information in a sense of causal interaction and properties then it seems arbitrary that some information should become conscious.
So for examples all organisms receive input from and interact with their environments. — Andrew4Handel
No, others enable you to understand that you are a separate individual and at the same time Others effectively structure who you are, which you willingly accept because it reinforces their recognition of you as an individual.To say that "others" define me without recognizing that I am also an "other", isn't very well thought out.
What does it mean to "not live up to others expectations" if I am completely defined by others? Shouldn't I always live up to others expectations if others define me? If others define me, then it seems that there would end up being conflicting, even contradictory, definitions of me.
No, others enable you to understand that you are a separate individual and at the same time Others effectively structure who you are, which you willingly accept because it reinforces their recognition of you as an individual. — Cavacava
Our desire is a desire for recognition, which is also the desire for what we believe the other desires, which is why we are always asking what others desire or lack. Our beliefs can be mistaken, but the structuring process remains the same. — Cavacava
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.